4 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I am not now nor have I ever been a Cato employee or title holder. I did, regrettably, do some work for David Koch, which was a less than pleasant experience--both times, shame on me for giving the Kochs a second chance. Cato should've broken with them long ago. The initial contract was broken the moment they stole Rothbard's shares, and they've been in breach of Kansas (and possibly federal and DC) not-for-profit compliance law for years as well.

There are no words that will suffice to describe the stupidity expressed in this blog post. So, should only people not affiliated with the Cato Institute be allowed to defend it? If this is all about some "gravy train", wouldn't it then make more sense to root for the wealthier side (that's the Kochs in case you didn't notice) to win out in this dispute? And please can you explain where anyone in any of the posts you link to hides the fact that they are a Cato employee, ex-employee, or affiliated (though usually unpaid) scholar?

If you want to hate Cato, that's perfectly fine by me, but please try not to be an idiot while doing so.

(Oh and FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a Cato employee but one who will be leaving behind Ed's "gravy train" in a few months to go to grad school. I just don't want to give you the false impression that I'm "impartial")

Matt - If I had intended to imply in any way that the pro-Cato bloggers were "hiding" their institutional affiliations, then I would not have linked directly to their posts where they openly out themselves.

Rather, my point - which incidentally you seem to have completely missed - was to show a glaring inconsistency in the current rhetoric about the supposed "independence" of the current Cato status quo. We've heard for weeks that the "controversial" nominees to the board are "Koch operatives" who owe their salaries/careers/livelihoods to Kochian miscellany. That may well be true, but could not the same be said of every name I've linked to on the Cato side?

Are they not "Crane operatives" who owe their own respective livelihoods, careers, and loyalties to Ed Crane? That may or may not be a knock against them personally, but it seems a tad out of place to whine so loudly about "Koch operatives" when one is completely oblivious to his or her own equally pronounced "operative" status on the other side. Then again, Cato seems to specialize in occupying glass houses as of late...

Anonymous - The Murray Rothbard shares are indeed a mark against the Kochs. I'd remind you though that Ed Crane was also a willing participant, perhaps even the primary instigator, of that crime. For that reason I find little objectionable to be said of any person who may wish a proverbial pox on both their houses. It is still difficult to maintain an objection to the treatment of Rothbard without recognizing Crane's complicity in that event would persist at Cato even if they jettisoned the Kochs.